In an exceptional case, the Bombay High Court (HC) recently allowed a 31-year-old woman to medically terminate her 25-week pregnancy.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale observed that the woman was visibly distressed and had been left 鈥渋n the lurch鈥 by her circumstances鈥攑articularly the initial refusal of her partner to support her, despite being an active participant in the situation.
鈥淲e found that the petitioner, a 31-year-old woman, is left in the lurch by her own circumstances as well as the refusal of her partner to offer support and assistance to her in any manner, despite being an active participant in bringing about the present situation,鈥 the court noted.
Noting her deep apprehension about social stigma and the possibility that her parents may not support her if they get to know about the pregnancy, the high court permitted her to implead her former partner as Respondent No.6 and directed him to appear before the court.
In a rare turn of events, the court recorded that her estranged but mature partner appeared and assured her that he would stand by her during the ordeal. He also agreed to deposit Rs 1,00,000 towards her medical and legal expenses.
The division bench was hearing the woman鈥檚 plea seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy at a medical institution of her choice.
The petitioner had been in a consensual relationship with her partner when the pregnancy occurred鈥攔eportedly due to the failure of a contraceptive device. After the relationship ended, she informed the court that she did not wish to continue the pregnancy and sought legal permission for termination.
Earlier, the court had, through an order dated June 13, directed the Dean of Sir J. J. Group of Hospitals to constitute a Medical Board under the MTP Act. While the Board found the woman fit for termination, it opined that no medical grounds existed under the law for abortion at this advanced stage of pregnancy.
Upon psychiatric evaluation, it was revealed that the petitioner had a history of sadness and stress arising from financial and interpersonal issues. She had reportedly been on psychiatric medication for eight years, had been smoking three-four cigarettes daily for the past five years, and had also experimented with cannabis. The petitioner had previously undergone surgeries for certain medical conditions.
During in-chamber proceedings, the woman told the court that she had quit her job a few months ago and was now forced to run from pillar to post after discovering the pregnancy. She also said her parents were not aware of the situation and expressed fear of being disowned if they found out. She appeared visibly distressed, the court noted.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Nikita Raje argued that the woman had neither financial nor emotional support. She submitted that the pregnancy was a result of failed contraception and that its continuation would cause grave injury to her mental health. Raje also highlighted the woman鈥檚 isolation, with both her parents and partner unwilling to support her initially.
The State, opposing the plea, argued that there was no fetal anomaly and that the pregnancy did not result from any non-consensual act. It suggested that the woman carry the pregnancy to term, offering to take full responsibility for the child if born.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court鈥檚 ruling in A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., where the top court held that a medical board cannot merely deny abortion beyond 24 weeks due to the absence of fetal abnormalities. It must also examine the risk to the woman鈥檚 physical and mental health while giving due weight to her circumstances.
Applying these rules, the high court concluded that continuing the pregnancy would adversely affect the petitioner鈥檚 already fragile mental health. It therefore allowed the woman to undergo a medical termination.
Accordingly, the high court directed that the termination be conducted at N.M. Wadia Hospital, Mumbai, a recognised fetal medicine centre.